Proposal: Control.Concurrent.Async

[Heinrich Apfelmus]

Thomas Schilling wrote:
> On 8 June 2012 11:07, Simon Marlow <marlowsd at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Uploading it to Hackage is certainly an option, and there are arguments in
>> both directions.  My thinking was:
>> [..]
>>  - it's a bit small for a package by itself. There's a lot of
>>   overhead for a package (github repo, Haskell Platform proposal,
>>   issue tracker, blah blah)

Github provides much of the infrastructure by default, like an issue 
tracker.

> I am very much against putting things into base unless there is a
> *very* good argument to do this.  If it is supposed to be *the*
> standard package, then it belongs into the platform, not base.  If the
> platform process is too heavy-weight to discourage this path, then we
> need to do something about that rather than sneak things in through
> the base library.  It already is a pain to work around issues in the
> base library (and many other core packages) since it's (a) takes a
> long time for an update to be released, and (b) cannot be upgraded
> independently from GHC (pulling in all the changes to other libraries
> as well).
> 
> I'm glad that the name issues is resolved.  If it is a small library a
> platform addition proposal shouldn't be too difficult either.  We just
> have to beware of too much bike shedding.
> 
> (BTW, have we had another platform proposal since the text package?)

+1 for a separate package that is included in the Haskell Platform.

If merging a package into the base library is easier than the process of 
including it in the Haskell Platform, then the latter needs to be fixed.


Best regards,
Heinrich Apfelmus

--
http://apfelmus.nfshost.com